Other-initiated repair in English

Kendrick, Kobin H.

doi:10.2478/opli-2014-0009

Cited by 79 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Restricted offers were the most frequent, and open requests the least frequent (see Table ). Text–chat repairs reflect a similar distribution to that found in spoken conversation (Kendrick, , on English OIRs). The frequency of restricted offers suggests that participants in our text‐based task adhered to the preference for specificity seen in spoken repairs, by which an interlocutor should be specific with respect to the problem (Dingemanse & Enfield, ).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 64%

“…Open requests, the least specific type of OIR, were infrequent despite being relatively quick to produce. This type of OIR often includes “Huh?” or “What?” in spoken English (Dingemanse, Torreira, & Enfield, ; Kendrick, ). The text–chat communication included modality‐specific open requests such as (repeated) question marks or variations on “What?” (e.g., “wut”).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are People Sensitive to Problems in Communication?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research indicates that interpersonal communication is noisy, and that people exhibit considerable insensitivity to problems in communication. Using a dyadic referential communication task, the goal of which is accurate information transfer, this study examined the extent to which interlocutors are sensitive to problems in communication and use other‐initiated repairs (OIRs) to address them. Participants were randomly assigned to dyads (N = 88 participants, or 44 dyads) and tried to communicate a series of recurring abstract geometric shapes to a partner across a text–chat interface. Participants alternated between directing (describing shapes) and matching (interpreting shape descriptions) roles across 72 trials of the task. Replicating prior research, over repeated social interactions communication success improved and the shape descriptions became increasingly efficient. In addition, confidence in having successfully communicated the different shapes increased over trials. Importantly, matchers were less confident on trials in which communication was unsuccessful, communication success was lower on trials that contained an OIR compared to those that did not contain an OIR, and OIR trials were associated with lower Director Confidence. This pattern of results demonstrates that (a) interlocutors exhibit (a degree of) sensitivity to problems in communication, (b) they appropriately use OIRs to address problems in communication, and (c) OIRs signal problems in communication.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are People Sensitive to Problems in Communication?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Repair is pervasive, highly systematic, and measurable in conversation (Healey, Colman, & Thirlwell, ). The current focus on quantifying repair, in order to link it with patient outcomes, necessarily involves abstracting it from the fine‐grained practices and actions involved in self‐repair and other‐repair, on which there is a substantial literature (Drew, ; Drew, Walker, & Ogden, ; Hayashi, Raymond, & Sidnell, ; Kendrick, ; Lerner & Kitzinger, ; Schegloff, ).…”

Section: Shared Understanding and Repairmentioning

confidence: 99%

Miscommunication in Doctor–Patient Communication

McCabe

Healey

2018

Topics in Cognitive Science

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of medical treatment depends on the quality of the patient–clinician relationship. It has been proposed that this depends on the extent to which the patient and clinician build a shared understanding of illness and treatment. Here, we use the tools of conversation analysis (CA) to explore this idea in the context of psychiatric consultations. The CA “repair” framework provides an analysis of the processes people use to deal with problems in speaking, hearing, and understanding. These problems are especially critical in the treatment of psychosis where patients and health care professionals need to communicate about the disputed meaning of hallucinations and delusion. Patients do not feel understood, they are frequently non‐adherent with treatment, and many have poor outcomes. We present an overview of two studies focusing on the role of repair as a mechanism for producing and clarifying meaning in psychiatrist–patient communication and its association with treatment outcomes. The first study shows patient clarification or repair of psychiatrists’ talk is associated with better patient adherence to treatment. The second study shows that training which emphasizes the importance of building an understanding of patients’ psychotic experiences increases psychiatrists’ self‐repair. We propose that psychiatrists are working harder to make their talk understandable and acceptable to the patient by taking the patient's perspective into account. We conclude that these findings provide evidence that repair is an important mechanism for building shared understanding in doctor–patient communication and contributes to better therapeutic relationships and treatment adherence. The conversation analytic account of repair is currently the most sophisticated empirical model for analyzing how people construct shared meaning and understanding. Repair appears to reflect greater commitment to and engagement in communication and improve both the quality and outcomes of communication. Reducing potential miscommunication between psychiatrists and their patients with psychosis is a low‐cost means of enhancing treatment from both the psychiatrist and patient perspective. Given that misunderstanding and miscommunication are particularly problematic in psychosis, this is critical for improving the longer term outcomes of treatment for these patients who often have poor relationships with psychiatrists and health care services more widely.

show abstract

“…This kind of structured conversational feedback is characteristic of natural conversation in almost any context (Bavelas et al., ; Clark, ; Colman & Healey, ; Dingemanse et al., ; Kendrick, ; Schegloff, ) but largely absent from language in other contexts of use, such as speeches or narration, and rarely encountered in standard psycholinguistic laboratory tasks.…”

Section: Coordinating Language Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Running Repairs: Coordinating Meaning in Dialogue

Healey

Mills

Eshghi

et al. 2018

Topics in Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People give feedback in conversation: both positive signals of understanding, such as nods, and negative signals of misunderstanding, such as frowns. How do signals of understanding and misunderstanding affect the coordination of language use in conversation? Using a chat tool and a maze-based reference task, we test two experimental manipulations that selectively interfere with feedback in live conversation: (a) "Attenuation" that replaces positive signals of understanding such as "right" or "okay" with weaker, more provisional signals such as "errr" or "umm" and (2) "Amplification" that replaces relatively specific signals of misunderstanding from clarification requests such as "on the left?" with generic signals of trouble such as "huh?" or "eh?". The results show that Amplification promotes rapid convergence on more systematic, abstract ways of describing maze locations while Attenuation has no significant effect. We interpret this as evidence that "running repairs"-the processes of dealing with misunderstandings on the fly-are key drivers of semantic coordination in dialogue. This suggests a new direction for experimental work on conversation and a productive way to connect the empirical accounts of Conversation Analysis with the representational and processing concerns of Formal Semantics and Psycholinguistics.

show abstract

Other-initiated repair in English

Cited by 79 publications

References 35 publications

Are People Sensitive to Problems in Communication?

Are People Sensitive to Problems in Communication?

Miscommunication in Doctor–Patient Communication

Running Repairs: Coordinating Meaning in Dialogue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About